I understand your concern, which is shared by all of us. I believe it will be resolved similarly to music streaming, where each owner receives a cent per pixel used. That would be fair.
Maybe some form of licensing system will eventually emerge, but I’m not sure the music-streaming comparison works.
A streamed song is a specific, identifiable work with a known owner, so the platform knows exactly who should be paid. With an AI-generated image, we usually cannot identify which artworks influenced it, how much each contributed, or whether a particular pixel came from anyone’s work at all.
So “a cent per pixel” sounds fair in principle, but who gets paid, how much, and based on what evidence?
That also would not solve the immediate problem for designers. Until there is reliable attribution, clear licensing and meaningful legal protection, I still would not treat AI-generated artwork as a trusted source for commercial client work.
For yet another long time, I have been advocating to wipe ALL AI Training based on general internet finds and start fresh, training them Exclusively on Public Domain works.
Or at least start a new one that way and advertise it as such.
No more copyright issues!
I know… Keep dreaming ya Dang Hippy!
1 Like